ook for the easy-open red arthritis cap. at humana, our medicare agents sit down with you and ask. hanging out with this guy. he's just the love of my life. [ male announcer ] getting to know you is how we help you choose the humana medicare plan that works best for you. mi familia. ♪ [ male announcer ] we want to help you achieve your best health, so you can keep doing the things that are important to you. keeping up with them. i love it! [ male announcer ] helping you -- now that's what's important to us. good friday. i'm craig melvin in for tamron hall. the news nation is following breaking news on the crisis in syria. president obama is expected to speak in a few minutes on syria. we will bring you his comments when those happen. meanwhile, within the past hour, secretary of state john kerry

laid out the evidence the white house believes proves the assad regime was, in fact, behind the chemical attack that killed over 1,000 people, including 426 children. >> we know the syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. we know that these were specific instructions. we know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. we know where they landed and when. we know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods. >> kerry's statement came after a national security council meeting led by president obama

at the white house a short time ago. the white house released the intelligence report on last week's chemical weapons attack using the report the white house hopes to make the case for military intervention at a time when public support is low. a new nbc news poll shows that 50% of americans oppose taking any military action against syria. 42% say they support it. 8 in 10 say president obama should have to get congressional approval before a strike. some in congress are becoming more vocal in their opposition. >> we don't have the assets. we don't have the resources to get involved in another event over there. >> and all of this is going on while the civil war continues in syria with some new details about a new attack today. syrian opposition activists say a school was attacked monday and posted videos of the aftermath. a quick warning, this video may be disturbing to some of our viewers.

the opposition says a government plane attacked a school with a substance like napalm. the images show no blood but burns over 50 to 80% of students' bodies in some cases. if the president does go forward with a military strike against syria, he will have to do it without help from one of america's biggest western allies. the british parliament voted yesterday against joining a u.s. mission. nbc's ayman mohyeldin continues to monitor all of this for us from beirut, lebanon. ayman, we should note first of all that the white house also just released a map of damascus that shows the areas hit by last week's chemical attacks. kind of tough to make it out on your screen there. you can see that all of those areas are dominated by the opposition or heavily contested. secretary kerry said our intelligence found that the rockets carrying those chemical agents were launched from areas

controlled by the regime. is this the smoking gun? >> well, it certainly is that from the american perspective. you know, he did a very good job of laying out why from the american intelligence perspective there is reason to believe that it was the syrian government. not only because of the delivery mechanism, not only because of the intended targets, controlled areas that are under the firm control of the rebel, but because there is a pattern of this behavior that has emerged in the past. in addition to that, you have the alleged intercepted phone calls from within the regime indicating they had given the order for that kind of attack. ke keep in mind, this isn't the first use of chemical weapons by the regime. more interestingly is the fact the united states has also assigned a number to this specific attack, which is they now say that more than 1400 people were killed, more than 400 children. and that in itself is the case

that the united states believes why the regime carried out this attack in that specific area. keep in mind, damascus is the seat of power of the syrian regime. to see that the rebels haved e a advanced on to the capital is certainly an indication why the regime is perhaps becoming more desperate to try to fend them off. it is the last stronghold, so to speak. it doesn't mean they don't have control in other parts of the country. if the capital falls or starts to see the type of violence other cities have, it could be the very beginning of the end of the syrian regime. >> ayman, while the debate continues in this country about what to do next, what can you tell us about syrian forces at this juncture? do we know whether assad is scrambling troops? do we know whether he's moving around military equipment? >> reporter: well, we've heard from opposition rebels on the ground who are scouting a lot of these military bases in these locations, and the reports they give is there have been troop

movements, there have been attempts to move around certain weaponry from various areas. there are reports that there have been orders to evacuate some of the military buildings that could possibly be targeted. keep in mind the only indication that the u.s. possibly is going to strike command and control positions has come out from the u.k. or the u.s. that has given the syrian military at least some moments of reflection. more importantly, the syrian government says it remains defiant. president assad himself has not been seen or heard from publicly for some time. he did give an interview to a russian newspaper a short while ago. in that he did remain defiant. he said his country would defend itself if it did come under attack. but there has been a movement among the syrian military in anticipation of this possible strike, craig. >> ayman mohyeldin from lebanon. thank you. i want to bring in congressman allen grayson of florida. he's opposed to a military intervention in syria saying, quote, i find it difficult to

justify any expenditure like that. there is nobody in my district who is so concerned about the well being of people in syria that they would prefer to see us spend billions of dollars on a missile attack against syria than to spend exactly the same amount of money on schools or roads or health care. congressman grayson joins me live now. first of all, i'm sure you heard at least a portion of what secretary kerry just said to us. let me get your reaction to that. did that in any way shape or form change your mind at all? >> no, because we still haven't heard anything that would explain why there's a vital u.s. national security interest in attacking syria. that's the bottom line here. i feel bad that this attack happened, but it wasn't an attack against americans. it's not an attack against anything that resembles an american interest. we can't be the policemen for the world. we have to pick our fights. the country is incredibly war weary at this point and understandably so. we should tend to our own garden

first. >> is there any doubt in your mind at this point now that the assad regime was behind the attack, or are you still convinced that the evidence itself is a bit murky? >> well, it's murky in one important respect, which is respect that is underlined by the report just released. the administration says it has evidence that syrian officials, not assad, but syrian officials were witting of the attacks. honestly, that's the first time i've ever heard that phase used in my entire life. witting of the attacks. one could reasonably ask the question, what did assad know and when did he know it? if you ask that question, you'll be met with a stoney silence. >> but the report -- and i've got a copy in my mihand -- also goes on to say there were videos, witness accounts, social media reports from 12 different locations in the damascus areas,

journalistic accounts, and nongovernmental agencies as well. how do you discount that? >> i didn't. and you're referring to reports that there was an attack. none of that evidence deals with who actually decided to make that attack. we could have a situation here where there's literally a loose cannon that decided to go ahead and undertake this and not anything reflecting the policy of the regime. by the way, it's been more than three months since there was even a claim of such an attack. this seems to be a one-time sporadic, maybe even unauthorized attack. regardless of the fact whether it was authorized or not, this simply has little or nothing to do with us. it has little or nothing to do with us. that's the fundamental, crucial point here. we are not the world's policemen. we can't go and try to right every wrong by bombing it. >> no moral obligation? >> well, if the u.n. were to authorize its member states to go ahead and do something about this, that might be a different

circumstance. but if you're talking about whether the united states has a moral obligation to right every wrong in the world, i think that you'll find that you're virtually alone in that opinion. >> do you think president obama needs congressional approval? >> yes. >> what have the conversations been like between the white house and congressional leadership? >> well, you'd have to ask congressional leadership that question. they haven't gone down through the rank and file yet. i haven't had any opportunity to ask my questions to the administration. >> congressman allen grayson of florida, thank you. >> thank you. >> let's take it to the news nation panel right now. kathleen hicks, senior adviser. good to see you all. colonel, let me start with you. we heard from secretary kerry a short time ago. did any of what he said change

your calculation? >> well, i'm persuaded there was an attack and furthermore that the government of syria was behind the attack. i think there's plenty of evidence to indicate that and probably more that hasn't been released. indeed, richard engel, nbc's chief foreign correspondent, has passed on some information that there's some evidence to indicate that at least one of the attacks emanated from an area that's dominated by syria's fourth division, which is commanded by assad's brother. so there's plenty of evidence to indicate it was an attack that came from syria. the real question is, what is our objective in attacking syria? if the objective is to overturn the assad regime, i say it's not going to happen with the attack we have planned. if the objective is to deter assad from attacking civilians

again, indeed from using weapons of mass destruction again, i say it's not going to have that effect either, i'm afraid. >> so what effect would it have? limited scope that secretary kerry laid out. no boots on the ground, he also said. what could realistically be accomplished by two or three-day tomahawk cruise missile strike on military capabilities that we just heard from ayman there, those military capabilities. sounds like they may be scattered about the country as well now, too. >> i think that the calculus of our national command authority is that even if it's not an overwhelming application of force to the syrian regime, it's not debilitating. it may convince sufficient numbers of people currently loyal to assad to change their mind. >> zeke, i want to pose a question to you. congressman grayson just brought

it up. our national interest in syria. in the simplest of terms, what is it? >> well, certainly we have heard the president and white house over of the past few days talk about they believe the national interest is in terms of upholding the international standard that you don't use chemical weapons. they're calling it international norms, not necessarily international law. and that maintaining a deterrent, that there needs to be some punishment for any rule breaking country. we heard secretary kerry saying, you know, if this continues on with impunity, what's the message to north korea? so from the administration's perspective, that is the national interest. that's a lot harder case to make than a lot of other conflicts that we've -- you know, similarly like afghanistan where we were attacked on 9/11. it's very hard to sort of find the motivation here for why this is directly in the national interests. this is a more indirect reason of maintaining this

international norm. >> kathleen, i want to play something else that secretary kerry said something a few moments ago and get your reaction on the other side. here it is. >> our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack. and i will tell you it has done so many than mindful of the iraq experience. we will not repeat that moment. >> secretary kerry taking it head on there. the iraq experience, the intelligence around it or lack thereof plays heavy now. how badly was the credibility of the intelligence community? how badly was it hurt then, kathleen? and had it not been damaged so badly, perhaps then might the conversation now be tremendously different? >> there's no doubt that the iraq experience is the background for this entire national and international conversation. the intelligence community's

reputation was badly hurt. and the reputation of the united states, of course, was badly hurt in presenting that intelligence. so for the community to now be at the point of high confidence as secretary kerry said on all the factors that he laid out is frankly quite impressive. it's not going to be enough to convince many people, so i think the key factor is the fact that we can see the chemical weapons were used and we will have to leave to others to assess, to individuals to assess whether assad personally was involved in ordering their use. >> all right. we're going to take a quick break. when we come back, we're going to continue our conversation about syria and talk about public opinion. once again, we are waiting on president obama. he's expected to speak from the oval office in just a few moments. he's expected to talk about the crisis in syria. again, quick break. we'll be right back after this. [ shapiro ] at legalzoom, you can take care of virtually

all your important legal matters in just minutes. protect your family... and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. thank you. thank you. i got this. oh, no, i'll get it! let me get it. uh-uh-uh. i don't want you to pay for this. it's not happening, honey. let her get it. she got her safe driving bonus check from allstate last week. and it's her treat. what about a tip? oh, here's one... get an allstate agent. nice! [ female announcer ] switch today and get two safe driving bonus checks a year for driving safely. only from allstate. call 866-905-6500 now. here we go! hold on man. is that a leak up there? that's a drip. whoo. okay. aah. now that's a leak. that is a leak!

and if you don't have allstate renters insurance... game over. [ female announcer ] protect your valuables from things like water damage for as low as $4 a month when you add renters insurance to your allstate auto policy. call 866-905-6500 now. plus, drivers who switched saved an average of $498 a year. just a few more ways allstate is changing car insurance for good. [ female announcer ] call an allstate agent and get a quote now. [ female announcer ] pop in a whole new kind of clean with tide pods. three chambers. three times the stain removal power. pop in. stand out.

if just a few minutes we are expecting to hear new comments from president obama on syria. i want to bring back our "news nation" panel right now. zeke, let's pick up where we left off here talking about public support in this country. no secret that we are a war-weary nation. however, new numbers show just how weary we are as a nation. nbc news poll, 80% of americans believe president obama should get congressional approval before using force in syria. 50% oppose military action.

obviously the poll itself was conducted before today's revelations about precisely what the government says we found in syria. but are those numbers the function of a war-weary public, or is it also a function of people not knowing enough maybe about what has happened in syria? >> i think that's really what the administration is trying to find out right now. that was sort of the key takeaway from secretary kerry's remarks an hour or so ago. really, laying it out there, making the case in plain language. none of the traditional intelligence jargon. you know, high confidence is what he used to describe it. he also said it's fact. we know this. we nowhere these rockets were fired from, when they were fired. we know who controlled that territory at the time they were fired. we saw the preparations. we know who's on the phone. that's plain language designed to get this information across to the public, trying to educate the public to build their support before, you know, the president makes his decision and

in the event that he does offer strikes, they're looking for those certainly to see a majority of americans on their side, not like that nbc poll. >> kathleen, secretary kerry did mention several countries by name, the allies who he claims are with us. turkey, the arab league, france as well. are there other countries in the region or otherwise who perhaps want the united states to take action here but can't say it publicly? >> i think that's the real question. i suspect there are many countries that fall in that category across the arab league. it certainly does not behoove them to talk about that publicly. our experience to date in syria over the past several years has been a lot of behind the scenes support from countries like jordan, obviously israel, but other countries that are arab, saudis and others who want to see a resolution to this crisis in syria. whether they will back this

particular approach now, the use of u.s. military force in response to this attack, i think, is unknown. >> colonel, let me come back to you really quickly here because we were talking about something during the break when talking about what a strike might look like in syria. we haven't spent a great deal of time talking about collateral damage because there will be some collateral damage, i'm sure. >> you know, it's funny. i was in the army for a long time then left and went to wall street. not surprisingly, actually, the same questions that when asked before using the military instrument of power is the same question that you ask when you're going to employ any asset, including your money. after you've asked and answered the question what's the objective, what's the plan and all the rest of that stuff, before you sign your name on the check or on the order, you ask the question, what can go wrong? if you think seriously about what can go wrong here, even though we assume that we have

incredibly accurate, precision-guided missiles, and we do, there's going to be collateral damage. doesn't matter where these weapons are going to be fired. i'm told that to the extent there were any russian advisers there in the country, they've already left. what if they haven't left? you'll have dead russians. you'll have dead syrian civilians, too. you can bet the syrians will get this all over the television as soon as the attack occurs. doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it, but we need to be prepared for collateral damage, which is inevitable. >> and be prepared for the fact there's a very real possibility that iran or perhaps hezbollah as well in lebanon might see this as an opportunity to -- >> or syria itself. as a matter of fact, one of the ways in which it can or will respond will be to send some messages over to israel as well. >> i want to also bring in seen

your political editor mark murray and sirius x m's michael smerconish. there's been a fair amount of talk about congressional approval. president obama calling congress back maybe for a session, calling them back from vacation early. is there anything that would stop congress itself from saying, hey, you fknow what, let's get back to d.c., let's talk about this, let's debate this, let's pass a resolution. i haven't heard any congressman suggest that. >> craig, that's a great point. it's a great question. one of the reasons why we're hearing from some democratic and republicans is they want a greater role in this, but also there is -- deep down if you wanted to ask them whether they wanted to actually have a vote on it, they're probably glad they don't have a vote. it looks there's likely there's going some type of action where they have their hands clean. in some ways, they get to have it both ways. of course, you've been talking about our new nbc poll that

shows nearly 8 in 10 americans want congress to have some type of roll. when americans are polled about things like this, they do like the checks and balances. they like having to go through different loopholes, to make sure that all the checks and balances are met. i think that's one of the reasons why the public is so overwhelmingly in support of congress, an institution they're usually not a fan of. >> michael smerconish, i always find your tweets inciteful. today is no exception to that rule. you insist your contention here is that this entire debate is being framed wrong, that we're asking the wrong questions, so to speak. what should we be asking? how should this debate be framed, sir? >> well, i think the administration thus far -- and this is what i read from secretary kerry, and it'll be interesting to see what the president has to say. the administration seems to be trying to sell this to the american people on an evidentiary basis, almost assuming we need to be convinced that these bad acts were the

result of assad. i don't think that's where the american people are. i think we give the president and the vice president, who's been very strong on this, the benefit of the doubt and we say, this is what the syrian government has perpetrated on its own people. but what still has to be explained to us is why it's necessarily our job, given that the u.k. is not going to do this, the u.n. is not going to do it, the arab league is not going to do it, why must this fall to us, especially when we have so much going on, on the home front? craig, i think there also needs to be an explanation as to why we don't act when there are 99,000 deaths from conventional warfare, but all the sudden when there are 1,000 that are a virtue of chemical warfare, now we feel we have to get involved. i'm not sold on this. neither are other people. there are some strange bedfellows. you just had allen grayson on. i tweeted out and said hell just froze over because i heard allen

grayson say something to craig melvin that i entirely buy into. >> let's reset here. going to take a quick break. president obama expected to speak from the oval office. we should note here this is a meeting, a pre-arranged meeting between president obama and the president of latvia. we expect president obama will talk about syria before that news conference even starts. quick break. ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. need a little kick? (announcer) at scottrade, our clto make their money do more.re (ann) to help me plan my next move, i take scottrade's free, in-branch seminars... plus, their live webinars. i use daily market commentary to improve my strategy. and my local scottrade office guides my learning every step of the way. because they know i don't trade like everybody.

i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade... ranked "highest in customer loyalty for brokerage and investment companies." with olay regenerist eye and lash duo.

the serum instantly thickens and defines lashes. the cream smooths and softens the look of lines. ♪ so wow! another eye opener from olay.

if just a few minutes we are expecting to hear new comments from president obama on syria. i want to bring back our "news nation" panel. i'm also joined by nbc news senior political editor mark murray and sirius xm's michael smerconish.

i want to talk about international law for a second. this morning jimmy carter, former president of the united states, issued a statement through his atlanta-based human rights center. this is what he said in part. a punitive military response without a u.n. security councilman date or broad support from nato and the arab league would be illegal under international law and also unlikely to alter the course of the war. kathleen, this is akin to what president obama said himself in a cnn interview about a week ago. what's changed in the past week? >> well, i think what's clearly changed is this attack and the growing realization that there really isn't a mechanism in the u.n. or other body like it to provide any kind of deterrent to a future attack of this sort. you have an international standard against chemical weapons. that's international law.

and then you have international standards against obviously attacking without cause another nation and without getting some kind of legal basis, we are in truly new territory. now, the british in kosovo used this rationale of a humanitarian response. a stronger rationale is really the self-interest, the self-defense rationale. the u.s. probably will have to make that case, attempt to make that case, which is protected by international law, if proven. >> kathleen, while you were speaking there, we were able to confirm that president obama says that he has made no final decision on syria just yet. no final decision. that coming from the president. again, we expect to hear from president obama in just a few moments. colonel jack, i want to come back to you here. this always seems interesting to me. when we start talking about precisely what kind of military action we are going to take in a

country. secretary of state john kerry saying an hour or so ago it's going to be limited. we don't expect it to take, you know, more than a few days. there will be no boots on the ground. what's the thinking behind that? why would we announce to the world precisely what it is we are going to do and what we are not going to do? >> because we expect no military result from this attack. it's not going to overturn the assad regime. it's not going to change his mind about killing his own people. it's not going to do anything. it is effectively -- and i don't necessarily mean this purr jortively, but basically it's an empty, punitive gesture. we said you can't do it. he went ahead and did it. now we're stuck with having to respond to it in some way. it's not going to have any strategic effect, unless it is so overpowering that it weakens the assad regime and they give up. nobody i know and nobody in the

military establishment believes this is going to be the case. >> a pr missile strike? >> yeah, they happen from time to time, and this is one of them right now. >> also joined now by ryan grimm of "the huffington post." you've got to wonder at this point whether president obama certainly wishes that he had not uttered that famous red line phrase at this point. >> he might. because if the purpose is public relations, if it's to send a message, that message has been sent. i think that you can be pretty sure that, you know, whatever assad's involvement with this chemical weapons attack was or is, he's going to think much more deeply before ever doing it again. let's say he does end up dodging these tomahawks, you know, what do you think the british parliament would do if there's another chemical attack? that really does change the calculation. it changes the calculus of

whether or not the united states should strike because if the purpose is to deter a strike but because of all of our saber rattling a strike is already less likely, then what's the point? >> michael smerconish, let me play devil's advocate here with you for a second and talk about what secretary kerry alluded to as well. the credibility of the united states. if we have said we are going to do something, if we have drawn this line in the sand and all of the sudden we decide, you know what, no, we're not going to do it afterall. we've got iran watching. we've got north korea watching. we've got hezbollah watching. what, then, does that do to the credibility of this country and this white house? >> well, it might be harmed. there's go doubt about it. tehran might think the next time the president says there's a red line with regard to iran developing a nuclear weapon that we really don't mean it. that's a shame, but what would be worse, i think, is to have this sense of bravado yet again

drag us into another conflict. i wish the president wouldn't have said it. it seems like a nondeliberate act on his part, which is unusual for him. but for face saving, maybe make a full-blown presentation to the u.n. security council, even knowing we'll get a veto from russia, but at least the world can see what we see and the president can say the red line was crossed, i wanted to act, unfortunately the u.n. wouldn't buy in, and that's the end of it, at least for now. >> president obama saying that the white house and the military are looking at, quote, a wide range of options. that from the white house just a few moments ago. we're working on getting the sound to you from president obama. again, no decision yet on military action in syria. we're going to take a quick break. when we come back, we'll continue our conversation. we'll also bring you those comments from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. by ad match. look at walmart's price. awesome! if you find a lower advertised price, they'll match it at the register. really?

yeah! ready? wow! that's the walmart low price guarantee. bring in your receipt before game time and see for yourself. [ female announcer ] at 100 calories, not all food choices add up. some are giant. some not so giant. when managing your weight, bigger is always better. ♪ ho ho ho ♪ green giant

help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. we continue to follow

breaking news. we are waiting on president obama to make some comments on syria from the white house. when that happens, we will, of course, bring those comments to you. i want to bring in kristen welker, nbc news white house correspondent, standing by for us right outside the white house. kristen, i want to play a piece of sound here for you from congressman elliott engle from the foreign relations committee and talk about it on the other side. this is what the congressman said just a few hours ago here on msnbc. take a listen. >> i think it's important for the president to do something because i think to do nothing would show every despot around the world that you can gas your own people, you can gas innocent civilians, you can gas children and get away with it. >> you've got congressman engle of course representing that school of thought. the white house no doubt hearing from scores of other lawmakers there on capitol hill who are saying whoa, whoa, mr. president. we would like to at least be consulted on this before any

sort of military action. the president, as he frequently finds himself, stuck in a really hard spot here. what can you tell us about what's happening behind the scenes in terms of conversations with lawmakers? >> reporter: well, craig, the white house right now trying to provide lawmakers with the intelligence. of course, they briefed them last night. there will be another briefing today. as you know, of course, they just released some of their intelligence to the public. i can tell you that president obama just weighed in on this issue moments ago, craig. we're waiting to get the tape during a bilateral meeting with presidents of two of the baltic countries. president obama saying he still has not made a decision, but he said that the atrocities in syria cannot go unanswered. he called them a threat to the world and to america's allies, particularly to israel and jordan. the president making it clear that any action would be limited in scope and not open ended.

the white house making it clear this is not going to be another iraq or afghanistan. but you are right. president obama is stuck in a very difficult position. of course, he drew that red line over a year ago saying that if president bashar al assad were to use chemical weapons, the united states would have to take action. that's the position the u.s. finds itself in. so the president making it very clear that he intends to take some type of limited military action despite the fact that the u.s. doesn't have a broad international coalition, despite the fact that congress, as you point out, craig, is divided as is the american public, quite split about whether or not they want the u.s. to actually intervene in iraq. >> kristen, stand by for us. again, we're expecting to get that tape you just alluded to. we're expecting to get that in a few moments here. once we can get that turned around, we'll put it on the air for you. colonel jack, let me come back to you for a second. you were watching secretary kerry's news conference there. the irony was not lost on me, and i know it wasn't lost on you

as well. john kerry essentially making the case for war. or a version of it. not so much war. >> john kerry, the anti-war activist, having served in vietnam, throwing his medals, or somebody's decorations, on the capitol steps. now making a case not just to go to war but to go to war with no declaration of war and no consultation with congress, which is precisely one of the things he was complaining about 45 years ago. yeah, it's a heck of an irony. i can't remember who it was who said this. where you stand is a function of where you sit. so when you're a part of the administration, you have a completely different view altogether. i don't think that irony is lost on anybody. >> zeke, let me come back to you here. we spent some time talking about

lawmakers here in this country being divided over the issue. the international community also divided. we have heard, of course, from secretary general of the united nations, who essentially said, you know what, we would prefer if the united states would hold off on acting unilaterally, essentially saying we want to give peace a chance. how difficult is it going to be for the white house in consultation with military advisers to make a decision that's not lambasted. >> well, the timing here in general is really interesting. john kerry said just a couple hours ago that the u.n. security council wasn't going to be a fruitful option. that's something the white house has said all week. but u.n. inspectors are packing up now. they'll be leaving late this evening our time, syria tomorrow

local time. the president goes to sweden then on to russia, which is president assad's sort of staunchest backer. that whole calendar really does narrow the president's options. it's somewhat difficult to launch a punitive strike fromovfrom oversees and certainly would be more of a slap in the face. it's probably going to come sooner rather than later. that's certainly cutting against what the u.n. secretary general would like, more time to form some sort of international consensus, get that formal report from the investigators. >> we should note for our viewers watching, we are just literally a few seconds away from president obama's comments from the white house on syria. colonel jack, let me come back to you quickly before we listen to the president. our national interests in syria, we were talking about this at the top of the hour. the simplest in terms, what is

it? >> well, we have -- of course, we have wide-ranging interests. we have interest in the economic well being of the entire world. >> let me stop you. let's listen in. >> all right. everybody all set up? well, obviously i'm very grateful to have my fellow presidents here as well as the vice president. before i begin, i want to say a few words about the situation in syria. as you've seen, today we've released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. this follows the horrific images that shocked us all. this kind of attack is a challenge to the world. we cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent

civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. this kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms sbens the use of chemical weapons, by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region like israel and turkey and jordan, and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us. so i have said before, and i meant what i said, that the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons. now, i have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm, but as i've already said, i have had my

military and our team look at a wide range of options. we have consulted with allies. we've consulted with congress. we've been in conversations with all the interested parties and in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign, but we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only syria but others around the world understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. again, i repeat, we're not considering any open-ended

commitment. we're not considering any boots on the ground approach. what we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding that there's not going to be a solely military solution to the underlying conflict and tragedy that's taking place in syria. and i will continue to consult closely with congress in addition to the release of the unclassified document. we are providing a classified briefing to congressional staffs today and will offer that same classified briefing to members of congress as well as our international partners. i will continue to provide updates to the american people as we get more information. with that, i want to welcome

presidenthe presidents to the white house. these countries that they represent all share very deep ties to the united states, both as allies and because of the extraordinary people-to-people relations that we have with these countries. i want to thank all the presidents who are here and their nations for all that they do to promote democracy, not only in their own countries but around the world. the baltics are among our most reliable allies in nato. and our commitment to their security is rock solid. our soldiers sacrificed together in afghanistan and the baltic ports continue to help support our troops as we transition the nato mission. today we're going to spend some time talking about our shared commitments to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations, which will add jobs in the baltics and united states. we're working on development assistance projects, including building institutions and strengthening civil society in

the emerging democracies of eastern europe and central asia. we'll obviously have discussions about our nato relationship and the security concerns that we share together. so again, i've had occasions to meet with all three presidents in a wide variety of settings and a wide variety of summits. they have been outstanding friends of the united states of america. we are very proud of them, and i want to thank each of them for their leadership. we know how far estonia, latvia, and lithuania have come in just the last few decades, and i know we'll accomplish even more in the decades to come. with that, i want to give each of these liederseaders a chancey a few words. >> thank you. i'd actually like to begin by thanking president obama for inviting us here, and we are quite -- >> there you have it. president obama from the white house talking about syria. again, saying no final decision

has been made, but if we are to act in syria, the conflict will be limited. the strikes would be limited, and there will be no boots on the ground as well. kristen welker standing by forrofor us at the white house. in terms of a timetable, what's next? when can we expect to hear from the president again? >> reporter: i wouldn't rule out hearing from him in the coming day, craig. the u.n. inspectors are still on the ground in syria. president obama leaves for the g-20 summit early next week on tuesday. it would make sense that we would hear from him at some point over the next several days, possibly before he leaves for the g-20 summit. but a couple of takeaways from what president obama said. he basically said he hasn't made a decision yet, but both he and secretary kerry were clear about the fact that they have come to the conclusion that some type of military action is necessary. the president saying it would be limited in scope, that it

wouldn't be open ended, saying that this wouldn't be a repeat of the war in iraq. just moments ago we got a statement from house speaker john boehner's spokesperson who says the president still hasn't clearly mapped out his strategy, his objectobjectives, and his go congress. members of congress really putting pressure on the obama administration to more clearly define what the goals are here. we know the american public is also divided on this, but the obama administration about this hour seems unequivocal about military action. >> andrea mitchell joins me now. we've heard from the secretary of state. we just heard from president obama. let me just get your initial reaction to what we just heard from president obama. >> well, it's very clear that while he says the, quote, decision has not been made, that's pretty much term of art. the intelligence assessment said

there was a high degree of confidence that this chemical attack was launched by the syrian regime and that more than 1400 people died, including 426 children. high degree of confidence means just about absolute certain in the way the intelligence community gives these assessm t assessmen assessments. there's no gap there in terms of what they in the administration believe happened. and those in congress who have seen this assessment, including the leadership who were briefed on it last night, tended to agree for the most part, including some of the president's critics, they don't agree that there's been enough consultation so far, but there's very little disagreement over the evidence itself. that said, i think as soon as those weapons inspectors are out of syria sometime on saturday, once nightfalls syrian time, noontime our time, almost anything could happen. >> colonel jack, what do you make of that timetable here, if we're talking about a potential military strike using tomahawk

cruise missiles in syria? is that a timetable that makes sense to you? >> oh, sure. we have assets in the region already. we're moving more in. these things can be launched from some distance away, are incredibly accurate. it's almost irrelevant when the attack would start because we could launch them from just about anywhere in the region. so any timeline really makes sense from a military standpoint. they can do it any time. >> mark murray is standing by for us down in washington, d.c., as well. mark, i want to bring you back into this conversation as well and talk about more of the political fallout. we know based on what the president just said a few moments ago that there are going to continue to be conversations between the white house and between congressional leadership as well. short of the president going to the hill and asking members of congress for permission to strike syria, are they going to be pleased?

is that essentially what it's going to take to assuage them? >> craig, i don't think anyone's going to be pleased right now, particularly at the moment where everyone is waiting to see what happens. president obama right now has certainly hit a bottom when it comes to his numbers. his overall approval rating was at 44%. that's tied for his lowest in. what's also notable is only 41% approved of his handling of foreign policy. as you mentioned, our poll was conducted before today. it was conducted on august 28th and august 29th. right now there's a sense the american public really hasn't been happy about the rationale, about all the talk that they've actually heard. now, it's very important to noet that public opinion often does change after there is action and it will be interesting to see if

we end up striking syria and launching missiles when the public's opinion is then. right now you look at the situation, this is a very skeptical public looking at the president and his handling of foreign policy. >> kathleen, one of the things that struck me is the president's mentioning of israel, his mentioning of turkey, his mentioning of jordan as well and what inaction in syria could mean for our allies in the region. >> well, absolutely. the israelis, obviously, are deeply concerned already on syria. jordan is deeply concerned but in a more precarious position. they don't have the military might to deal with syria. they need the united states there to help them. and lebanon, of course, is descending as it all too often has in the past toward increased civil strife, to say the least. so, you know, the whole region is in a very precarious position.

israel is sitting there with concern. the saudis are deeply concerned right now. and so whatever action the united states undertakes, it has to be thinking ahead to what the implications are going to be after that first set of attacks, what those implications are beyond syria. >> colonel jack, let me end with you. play this game here with me for a second. what would have happened had the president ordered a military strike a few days ago and explained it to the country after the fact? what would have happened had he said, here's the intelligence, this is what we had, this is why we did it, and here's the result? >> i think it's a very good point. in most situations like this, it's better sooner or much later, not in the middle. he picked in the middle, which is always a very, very bad idea. politicians are used to talking. probably in most situations they

ought to just shut up and act and announce what's happened after the fact. or if you really want approval, then you have to present all the facts, run the whole string out before you make the decision. this president decided to do neither, and it's going to be rough going for him until this is all over. >> colonel jack jacobs, always appreciate your insight. a big thanks to the rest of the panel as well. that does it for this edition of "news nation." "the cycle" starts right now. we cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. this kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons, by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region

like israel and turkey and jordan, and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us. we're not considering any open-ended commitment. we're not considering any boots on the ground approach. what we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons. >> washington had been banking on the u.k. to assist in a strike on syria, but the british parliament said no, we're not going along with that. they voted against military action. we still have france and turkey with us, but the arab league says they will not back retaliatory military strike, denying obama the valuable cover that he thought he was going to get. earlier this afternoon after meeting with the president and the national security council, secretary of state john kerry delivered the administration's most powerful statement to date on this matter. >> we